This is an interesting one. I don't think Apple can win this.

I've been saying it for years... Apple is just as bad as Microsoft, if not worse. The only difference between the two is Microsoft doesn't use slander/lies against apple as an advertising method.

I wonder how many companies won when charged like this? Links please..

apple already lost this case when they made their product so restrictive and exclusive to itself and the silly thing is micro$haft with its sily zune device is following the same pattern as apple for the music sales.

EastCoasthandleI wonder how many companies won when charged like this? Links please..

Well, even M$ lost the Windows Media Player case, that was only a few months back. Apparently shipping windows with Media Player made consumers use it over other software so they were forced to remove it in some areas.

jocksteelukthe silly thing is micro$haft with its sily zune device is following the same pattern as apple for the music sales.

Microsoft's goal is not to make Zune better than the iPod... it's to destroy the iPod. And from the looks of things, iPod/Apple are in trouble. Because of MS and Mr. Gates, DRM will soon be a thing of the past.

Microsoft is in the same boat with the Zune. Propriety DRM that they wont (at this point) license or share with other companies. Playsforsure was a good platform, too bad they abandoned it.

:edit: Well it appears, after some googling, that music bought off the Zune marketplace works on older Playsforsure devices. Hmmmm

Also didnt France try to impose a deadline on Apple to make their music work with other players?

france are still debating it but since this case is bringing this to a head france may not need to anymore

well its in france so there deliberation willl be awhile but on a happier note nno one is buying the zune :roll:

russianboyToo be honest I think MS is the one monopolizing. EG-They could have made DX 10 run on XP but they made it so that we HAD to buy Vista for DX10. They don't give us much choice in the software/os area.

I do see what you are getting at here, it does suck that you need Vista for DX10 and apparently there is no technical reason why it couldn't be made to work with XP but I'm not sure if this is the same kind of thing.

We may not like it but I thinks it is acceptable business practice to launch a new OS with features that the previous version didn't have and cant/wont be retro-fitted with. Its not as if we complain about the features on this years Ford models not being retrofitted to the car we bought last year, or 5 years ago. We actually expect new stuff to be better and exclusive or there is no reason to upgrade and we would all still be running 3.11

dont worry about DX10 the best hackers in the world a working on getting it to work on xp :roll:

BTW How is Apple Monopolizing everyone with iTunes and iPod? It became so popular because PEOPLE liked it and we still have a large choice. EG-Don't like iTunes? Go Limewire . Don't like iPod? Get a Creative, Truly, iRiver, Sony, Sansa, Zune, ATO, Archos, the list goes on and on and on. I personally don't think apple should be sued because its so popular. If every business was sued for monopoly because it was popular we'd have no Microsoft, Apple, AMD, Intel well...anything. As everyone would sue eachother for "Monopolizing" eachother. I understand that having total market domination is bad but Apple has PLENTY of competition. ITS CALLED SUCCESS AND ITS PART OF BUSINESS!!!!

It doesn't work like that because not all people think like you. Your average consumer is so linear that if ipod comes with itunes, that is the only thing you use with your ipod. Real people are not like us, sitting on message boards, voicing our opinions, or thinking about how the world could be better if MS did this, or APPLE did that. They simply don't care, and because of that, they will eat whatever is thrown at them, but only in the order that it is thrown. FYI, were not talking about popularity.... were talking about consumer rights.

Funny story though..... friend bought a zune, circuit city gave him a free 30 day subscription to napster, napster wont work with the zune.

russianboyITS CALLED SUCCESS AND ITS PART OF BUSINESS!!!!

I agree, Apple is just doing what every other business does and trying to make the most money, which is fair. However, the way it works in this case is not particularly fair on the competition. Ok, the iPod is a huge success and (some people think it's crap, you're entitled to your opinion) it gives consumers what they want. However, Apple have capitalised on the success of the iPod, which consumers are chosing to use, and forcing them to use their software, which they may not want to but they have little choice because of the way iPods store music. Because iPod users are practically forced to use iTunes, this essentially means that they are forced to use the iTunes music store to download music because music from other sources is not compatible.

Therefore, Apple is taking advantage of its position in the MP3 player market and putting the competition at an unfair disadvantage because of this, leading to it having a large market share. In the long run, this may be bad for consumers because Apple can push prices up for online music and unless people want to go and buy another MP3 player which could cost them more money, they will buy from the iTunes music store because they are too lazy or impatient to wait and buy the CD in a lot of cases.

prime95voicing our opinions, or thinking

how dare you :roll: i just pulled a M$ trick its called pulling your words outta context :nutkick:

IPOD = sucks, APPLE = sucks unless you do graphics. Good, Im glad they are getting sued

My Macbook Pro remains my favorite laptop by leaps and bounds. I love Apple. I love my iPod. I don't like Apple Fanboys. I am sure Apple will lose this case, and rightly so.

@WarEagle: Please be precise. Ipod is a great media player! I've tried out lot's of different brands, and Ipod is one of the best.

@monopoly: Nah, I don't think it's monopoly. There ARE tons of different media-players out there, but people (at least americans) all buy ipods. It's not Apples fault. When I visited some friends in Detroit they didn't even get the concept of an mp3-player that wasn't an ipod. And when I asked the guys at BestBuy about other brands, they were like "Huh? :wtf:".

Just to stir it up - Creative could have had Apple by the nuts not so long ago when they sued Apple for the blatant use of the Zen control system. They could have embargoed all iPod imports into the US, preventing new sales. Apple paid them off.

Creative had HD based MP3 players in the late 90s, well before all the other chumps... but Apple had a bigger advertising budget (I don't know bout everyone else's parts of the world, but we don't have any TV ads for Creative Labs here...) and as a result caught the attention of a broader range of users. That broader range (the general public) tell friends by word of mouth... and the iPod makes it big.

It all comes down to greed - and it's something Apple had. The iPod made up for any failings the Macintosh was having at the time. To be honest, Apple have always made a reasonably solid product, I just never, EVER liked their software. The mid-90s sealed their fate with the Road Apples, and the PowerMac that exploded on my kitchen table last month sealed it. It's only by miracle that I still own one - and apparently Apple don't like supporting anything that's not MacOS X based any more.

I hope they lose. If MS can be shafted repeatedly for monopolizing, why can't Apple? In fact, why did Apple get the right to sue Mac clone manufacturers, when PC cloning is common practice now?

CarcenomyIt all comes down to greed -

Well, isn't that what huge companies are all about? Everything nowadays is based on Greed.

Good point. But when they take it too far, it goes wrong. Apple and MS are both prime examples.

CarcenomyJust to stir it up - Creative could have had Apple by the nuts not so long ago when they sued Apple for the blatant use of the Zen control system. They could have embargoed all iPod imports into the US, preventing new sales. Apple paid them off.

If Creative hadn't settled for anything then Apple would have just changed the control system, admittedly it might not be so good but they could still do it. In all fairness the patent hadn't gone through when Apple started using it.